Bud Selig and the powers-that-be at Major League Baseball have temporarily lifted Pete Rose’s ban from baseball, so that he can appear at the Reds game on September 11 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of become the all time hits leader of baseball.
But he won’t be able to make it, because he’s already committed to another public appearance.
In a casino.
The irony just slays me.
Link isn’t working for me.
Did he ask for the temporary deal, or was it a surprise to him? If he didn’t request it, I see no obligation for him to cancel his previous schedule to participate.
Sorry. Crappy computer. I’ll try posting the link again:
So far as I’ve read, it was the Reds who put this all together.
But if he’s trying to win his way back into MLB’s good graces, enough to finally make it to the Hall of Fame, then scratching his ass with the olive branch Selig’n’Co have extended is not a particularly smart move.
Apparently the casino has agreed to push back his starting time, allowing him to appear at the pre-game ceremony.
I don’t think his appearing or not appearing will have any effect on his reinstatement. He was allowed to appear at the All-Century event over a decade ago. He’s still out.
If he had a prior contractual obligation…as appears to be the case here…and the casino were uncooperative (apparently not the case here), should he risk being sued for breach of contract and incurring liability for damages?
I’m a Reds fan and I absolutely detest Pete Rose the man. He was a great player (and I’m not old enough to really remember watching him play much) but Jesus, what a douchebag. I know several people that have met him and to a man describe him as a class-A dickbag.
And as to the obvious: if he really cared about rehabilitating his image so he could at least get into the HOF, the fact that he spends so much time in casinos (which is how he’s earning a living, signing autographs for $100 or more a pop…pathetic) isn’t really endearing to the Commish or anyone else for that matter. Dude clearly has a gambling issue and is enamored with Las Vegas.
Why does having a career that involves appearances and signing autographs mean you have a gambling issue?
Because due to having a gambling issue, instead of having a career involving managing baseball or otherwise being involved with the MLB in some capacity, he’s now hanging around the “dens of iniquity” trying to scrape out a living! I mean, c’mon…this guy is almost as bad as Art Schlister.
What job is he allowed to hold? For that matter, how many marketable skills do you think he has? Should he scrub toilets for minimum wage rather than accept a sweet gig where all he has to do is show up sober enough to scribble his name?
Aw, you gotta show up sober?
What the suck.
Again I ask - why does that mean he has a gambling problem?
Well, Oakminster said “sober enough to scribble his name.” If your name’s something complicated like “DiMaggio” you may need full sobriety, but for “Pete Rose” I suspect you could at least have a buzz on.
Pete Rose can be categorized as a douche bag for any number of reasons, but not for signing autographs for money.
The Hall of Fame means a lifetime of selling your image/name, so anyone that has a problem with Pete Rose selling his name/image needs a reality check. The Hall must be full of douche bags.
He gambled on baseball when managing then Reds. For that, he is a douche/bag.
Oakminster, old chap, I have no problem with Pete spending the rest of his life signing autographs for $100 a pop in Vegas. I’m neither a Reds nor a Rose fan.
I’m just enjoying the irony of the situation.
I don’t care what he does, really. I just view him with contempt for ruining what would have otherwise been an awesome baseball legacy. Over something stupid like gambling.